linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 0/5] Avoid requesting page from DMA zone when no managed pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211213142142.GA999996@odroid>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:21:42 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@....de,
        robin.murphy@....com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, vbabka@...e.cz, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
        John.p.donnelly@...cle.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 0/5] Avoid requesting page from DMA zone when
 no managed pages

On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Baoquan He wrote:
> 
> > > The slab allocators guarantee that all kmalloc allocations are DMA able
> > > indepent of specifying ZONE_DMA/ZONE_DMA32
> >
> > Here you mean we guarantee dma-kmalloc will be DMA able independent of
> > specifying ZONE_DMA/DMA32, or the whole sla/ub allocator?
> 
> All memory obtained via kmalloc --independent of "dma-alloc", ZONE_DMA
> etc-- must be dmaable.
> 
> > With my understanding, isn't the reasonable sequence zone DMA firstly if
> > GFP_DMA, then zone DMA32, finaly zone NORMAL. At least, on x86_64, I
> > believe device driver developer prefer to see this because most of time,
> > zone DMA and zone DMA32 are both used for dma buffer allocation, if
> > IOMMU is not enabled. However, memory got from zone NORMAL when required
> > with GFP_DMA, and it succeeds, does it mean that the developer doesn't
> > take the GFP_DMA flag seriously, just try to get buffer for allocation?
> 
> ZONE_NORMAL is also used for DMA allocations. ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32 are
> only used if the physical range of memory supported by a device does not
> include all of normal memory.
> 
> > > The size of ZONE_DMA is traditionally depending on the platform. On some
> > > it is 16MB, on some 1G and on some 4GB. ZONE32 is always 4GB and should
> > > only be used if ZONE_DMA has already been used.
> >
> > As said at above, ia64 and riscv don't have ZONE_DMA at all, they just
> > cover low 4G with ZONE_DMA32 alone.
> 
> If you do not have devices that are crap and cannot address the full
> memory then you dont need these special zones.
> 
> Sorry this subject has caused confusion multiple times over the years and
> there are still arches that are not implementing this in a consistent way.

Hello Baoquan and Christoph.

I'm the confused one here too. :)

So the point is that ZONE_NORMAL is also dma-able if the device can access
normal memory. (which is false for ISA devices, ancient PCI devices,
...etc.)

Then if I understand right, I think the patch 5/5 (mm/slub: Avoid ...) should be removing
GFP_DMA flag from the function sr_probe() -> get_capabilities, rather than
copying copying normal kmalloc caches to dma kmalloc caches. (If the device does
not have limitation in its address space.)

Please let me know If I got it wrong :)

Thanks,
Hyeonggon.